|
GIFFIN: Thank you. Any other question of staff? None? (After speaking to the Director and
<br />counsel,) Sid, I was just asking them if, protocol, we ask the applicant to speak first. So in that
<br />regard, please.
<br />FUKE: Thank you very much. In response to some of the questions raised by the Commissioner,
<br />specifically in regards to the termination of the existing driveway access, I think the Director
<br />explained it very well, and I think in addition to that what compounds the situation, the existing
<br />situation; so I guess the proximity aspect kind of really complicated the matter. And the applicant
<br />has no objection, you know, to the proposed amendment to the recommendation, you know, which
<br />is to call for the termination, except for emergency purposes, of the exiting driveway. The other
<br />thing we’d like to suggest is that on Condition No. – just for clarity sake – on Condition No. 7, it
<br />readsright now that “Access to the project site shall meet the requirements of the Department of
<br />Transportation.” “Transportation” suggests like it’s the State, but that section of the driveway falls
<br />under the County jurisdiction; so we’d like to suggest that that be changed to “the Department of
<br />Public Works” to make it clear rather than “Transportation.”
<br />And just a general comment. What’s motivating this application is that Parker Ranch, as you all
<br />know, have had to, you know, regrettably scale down some of its cattle operations, and then its
<br />existing facilities were predicated upon, you know, just having a full-blown cattle activity, ranching
<br />activity; however, as you know, because of this scaled-down version their facilities are currently
<br />underutilized, you know, both the headquarters, the existing maintenance area. So what they want
<br />to do, you know – they’re probably at this point in time maybe about 50 percent occupied – and so
<br />what they want to do is be able to fully, more fully utilize the existing facilities. And so what the
<br />Hirayamas have proposed, you know, in terms of recommended condition, the applicant had no
<br />objections largely because that was the intent anyway; they were not going to expand or, you know,
<br />construct new buildings so on and so forth. So again, you know, the applicant essentially wants to
<br />utilize, you know, more fully utilize what’s there right now, and that’s the intent. The applicant also
<br />realizes that the special, the use of the rodeo had created some problems in the past, you know, not
<br />so much the rodeo activity but when it was used for concert, and itcreated a lot of problem, which
<br />also created heartburn for the applicant itself;so they were sensitive to what the Hirayamas’
<br />concerns were, and so having the facility be used as a special venue and removing that component
<br />from the application was really not objectionable on the part of the applicant, so -. With that, I
<br />guess, you know, that’s pretty much like all we have to share and, you know, we respectfully
<br />request that the Commission favorably consider the application and the conditions as proposed by
<br />the staff and amended.
<br />GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of Sidney Fuke.
<br />BOWMAN: I have.
<br />GIFFIN: Lani.
<br />BOWMAN: A couple questions. So special events does not include rodeos?
<br />FUKE: It’s our understanding that the existing rodeo facility is already a permitted use.
<br />6
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
|